Philosophy of Sids 'Civilization'

Actually the notion of progress came with Christianism.

insaneweasel said:

I think the real thing is that Civ has a science focus. Everyone must develop science or be left far behind. Such thinking has only been around for the past few centuries, and it is more or less a western invention. That, I think, is the philosophy of Civ.

Click to expand...

Such thinking has been around for thousands of years. Some may rephrase and say: we must learn about the world around us and achieve a higher level of Being for ourselves, and, hence - everyone. (Without the 'left far behind' bit )

Where did modern technology come from? It came from accumulation of knowledge about the world that surrounds us. Knowledge passed from one man to another since the dawn of times and evolved into what we know as modern science. There were civilizations more advanced than a current one scientifically. The modern western/eastern civilization still can not figure out why the heck the Pyramids are there and how on Earth could anyone build something that huge without using Caterpillar products.

Things like Roman Pantheon, Pyramids, works of Al-Khwarizmi and ibn Sina, even Religions show that our ancestors strived for science like modern societies do.

In a way, Civ reflects that longing for well being through 'science'. The way i see it, on top of that (in CiV) there is a concept of competition for dominance (scientific, cultural, etc.) , which can be seen as yet another reflection of the ill will of certain individuals in the modern world (and worlds before that) powered by greed and other flaws of character.

So, to resonate with OP, i'd say that CiV Is a profound product of Western civilizations, but it should not be seen apart from civilizations before us or modern Eastern civilizations.

PhilBowles said:

(China never had Great War Infantry, for example, and landships were a very short-lived early tank design essentially confined to European nations).

Click to expand...

Part of the reason I dislike that.

Civilization promotes multiculturalism by teaching us how to respect different people than ourselves. Each game, we interact with a representation of a different civilization, with accurate behavior for their culture. The rich elements allow us to play as china and feel like we really are bargaining with Napoleon, and fighting against Mongol Khans while building the pyramids. The conflicts that emerge occur over reasons similar to actual reasons of conflict - assessment of the situation leads to being able to expect what Alexander or Saladin might do. In fact, the behavior so closely mimics that of the leader's RL attitudes that immersion is the best part of it.

With expansions, we can spread religion and learn about religious tolerance. By sharing cultural principles, we can advance mutual goals in this empire-simulator that has a vast number of options to win. You can build a cultural utopia or launch a spaceship! And yes, if you are a master tactician you can even win by conquest of your enemies. The philosophy of this game is a healthy contribution both to anthropologists and college professors who wish to provide a healthy example of how the world works with a video game.

What i have learned from Civilization is that there is great hope in the world with all its problems, because reasonable and rational minded leaders with the best intentions of mind will lead us to victory. After all, the only way we can lose is for Gandhi to launch a spaceship. And if he does, he wins but that is fine because we will alive happily ever after.

The End.

thadian said:

What i have learned from Civilization is that there is great hope in the world with all its problems, because reasonable and rational minded leaders with the best intentions of mind will lead us to victory. After all, the only way we can lose is for Gandhi to launch a spaceship. And if he does, he wins but that is fine because we will alive happily ever after.

Click to expand...

Impressive. If I would have to make my conclusion about the future of the world based on my Civ games it would be that we are doomed. There will be one country/culture which will impose its way of seeing the truth on others by the strength of the machinery and might of its armies. Its celebration of fascism and quite ridiculous.

-wakes up- yup, unfortunately, i think your right...

thadian said:

Civilization promotes multiculturalism by teaching us how to respect different people than ourselves. Each game, we interact with a representation of a different civilization, with accurate behavior for their culture. The rich elements allow us to play as china and feel like we really are bargaining with Napoleon, and fighting against Mongol Khans while building the pyramids. The conflicts that emerge occur over reasons similar to actual reasons of conflict - assessment of the situation leads to being able to expect what Alexander or Saladin might do. In fact, the behavior so closely mimics that of the leader's RL attitudes that immersion is the best part of it.

Click to expand...

I did just get early-rushed by Askia who coveted my lands, which isn't terribly representative of his character or the Songhai...

What i have learned from Civilization is that there is great hope in the world with all its problems, because reasonable and rational minded leaders with the best intentions of mind will lead us to victory. After all, the only way we can lose is for Gandhi to launch a spaceship. And if he does, he wins but that is fine because we will alive happily ever after.

Click to expand...

What I have learned from Civilization is that the UN actually brings peace to the world, according to the victory text. And this is the case even when it provokes global war for control of minor nations.

That, and the fact that world history proceeds in a series of turns rather than in real time.

Ok, people haven't figure it out but...


My above post was a notion of sarcasm. If we "learned multicultural tolerance" from Civilization we would say "If arabia covets your lands, thats all the reason they need" and "why can the mayans build more pyramids than egypt?"

I was posting "what i wish" civ 5 was, as a simulator game. Posting what i wish i learned from it, with a small notion of mockery and sarcasm.

However to be more honest, i did become interested in history because of Civ1. I thought it was awesome being able to play the aztec, and learn history. It even inspired me to study history and anthropology for many years. In truth i have benefited from playing civ games, and i hope there is still "some kid" like i was 20 years ago who pops in the game, is amazed by the civlopedia and wants to learn a lot more.

thadian said:

However to be more honest, i did become interested in history because of Civ1. I thought it was awesome being able to play the aztec, and learn history. It even inspired me to study history and anthropology for many years. In truth i have benefited from playing civ games, and i hope there is still "some kid" like i was 20 years ago who pops in the game, is amazed by the civlopedia and wants to learn a lot more.

Click to expand...

For my part I can say its mutual. I love history mainly because of love for my fatherland so I like to replay it a bit and also I have certain kind of ambition and passion which while playing Civ brings me back to history to learn some lesson from it.

In all bluntness, Civilization hasn't been Sid Meyer's game since Civ 2.

Nitpicking jump in here

===

But the Maya DID build more pyramids than the Egyptians ever did. Plus we have the biggest pyramid in the world now (even bigger than the one in Giza... La Dhanta)

All in all, this game-series bowls down to one slot.

You start a new map and that map will never be the same as before (if you picked one of the maps that is not Earth). It's fantasy and it's a game.

Not even touching difficulties, the game is beautiful and has always been since CIV1 as the new games never repeats themselves. There are some shallow stupidities and random errors, but can you play the game?

Yes, you can! Going into minor affection like diplo, warfare or even winning the game, the game is just wonderful. It's the one of a kind and ppl are constantly bashing it as I do now and again, but I played this series for 20 years and I'm allowed to bash it.

But I only bash some things, that should've been done better and so on.

Still, when I get burried, I want civ3 and 5 burried with me. Hope I live long enough to CIV6!

China never had Great War Infantry, the Mayans never had ICBM's, and America never had spearmen.
This faulty non-argument never should have made it into what is otherwise an interesting topic.

thadian said:

My above post was a notion of sarcasm. (...) I was posting "what i wish" civ 5 was, as a simulator game. Posting what i wish i learned from it, with a small notion of mockery and sarcasm.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that Civilization presents somewhat a positive side of civilization with most of the evilness excluded. With each version of this game it's more and more suitable for kids. Graphics are brighter, pollution gets less significant and unhappiness is downgraded. So Civilization is something positive, you don't see massive climate change when you cut down all forests, you don't pollute water with your battleships, etc. I really had an impression that Civ5 gives this optimistic outlook that thadian was sarcastic about. Out of 5 victory conditions only one is violent implicite. It's a vision of a world where we can deal with pollution. In Civ4 U.N. could enforce only those systems of government that were thought as the best.

What really is noticeable is that Civilization is an American game. When you play games from Swedish Paradox Interactive (Europa Universalis, Rome, Crusader Kings...) you see a strategy game from an Old World perspective where family ties, treachery, religious schisms, Pope and many more really are in the centre of gameplay. In Civ you have the Settler that founds cities in largely uninhabited/unoccupied world which is obviously American way of founding Civilization. It's pretty much like colonization of the New World.. Leaders portrayed like Movie Heroes (individualism), promotions and civ traits (like RPG games that also originated in U.S.). There are more but that's enough for showing what I mean. Mindless violent barbarians are just a mini-game but it does have unpleasant and worrying implications, when you take it as a world-view. It's a right-wing vision of war on crime, in contrary to the left-wing vision of solving crime and negotiations. Yes, I've simplified things but you do feel like a police-man sometimes.

It doesn't bother me too much, I still love the series although Civ5 dropped many things that I liked. Besides, Civilopedia is clearly centred on American political correctness and progressive-liberal values. In terms of philosophy this game is excessively positivist and modernist. I share different values and for me happiness of the people is way more important than scientific arm-race.